| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2006 01:45:58 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Legal-Matt
I need some Flash Wedding advice badly. I tried some flash shots at a rehearsal last night...with light on in the church, sunlight and the flash on top of that and ALL the images looked like garbage. I'm tempted to use the natural light and shoot ISO 800-1000, 1/40-1/80 sec. or less and live with it.
Flash ain't my thing it seems...never liked the way it looked....
Not to hijack the thread but I'm also tempted to stay back and use my 70-200mm VR for the lower shutterspeeds. |
I am no expert on these things, but, in my experience key to flash is getting direct flashlight away from the camera body by bouncing the flash and/or using a big diffuser, or a flash bracket and off-cam cord. I use my flash bounced if at all possible, and the Gary Fong lightsphere (basically an oversize diffuser). |
I'll second the Lightsphere...nice even lighting without the "deer caught in headlights" look on the subject. It looks dorky, but it works :) |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 03:23:00 PM · #27 |
This is a huge church but flash is allowed. There is a nice modest mounts of artificial light and sunlight so I may be lucky.
I never see anybody post Church shots...I wonder why? LOL! I would love to see anybody's best samples so I can get an idea of what's acceptable.
I'm fortunate that they hired me because of my candid work but I still need to deliver those dreaded ceremony shots.
Message edited by author 2006-07-26 15:25:17. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 03:29:27 PM · #28 |
I have the NON-IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens.
You are going to get two distinct responses in this thread. Those who have the lens with the IS function are going to tell you how great it is, and it probably is a good lens. I have the non-IS version and I use it for sports. Some of that sports is in pathetic light also, and I get great results with my lens.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 03:52:10 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
This is mostly correct but you've overlooked the 2nd mode IS on this lens. The 2nd mode allows for linear stability while the photographer is panning the camera. If you have a subject that is moving in a linear motion in a plane that can be considered parallel to the plane of the sensor then the photographer can set the IS to 2nd mode and while the subject's surroundings will be blurred, as long as the camera pans at an appropriate ratio of the speed of the subject and the shutter speed is high enough to freeze the subject's motion then the subject will remain "frozen" in the image as though it had been standing still. If that explanation made no sense then consider a photo of a motorcycle racing along a course where the course, the grass, the bales of hay in the background all continue to have motion blur but the motorcycle and rider are rock solid. One way to achieve this effect is by putting this lens into the 2nd IS mode and then panning the lens.
I've never used this feature but I feel that if you're looking to capture motion of this sort (horse race, motorcycle road race, kid running from 1st base to 2nd, etc) then you might evaluate this feature to be worth the price difference. |
Not to dispute what Kevin has said about the Mode 2 of Canon's IS, but more just to serve as a point of reference - I have shot motorcycle racing pans with a goal of the bike and rider appearing still, the wheels spinning and the background motion blurred by handholding with a 300mm non-IS at shutter speeds of 1/250 and 1/200. For race horses, which don't run as fast as motorcycles travel, such a shot is nearly impossible so I try for an almost frozen horse with an oof bg using 1/320 and settling for a small amount of movement in the feet and lower legs. IS would probably help by slowing this shot down to 1/250 or 1/200 where flying dirt would add to the impression of motion in the print while still showing the body of the horse and it's rider as nearly still. I've been thinking a lot about these kinds of shots lately. Maybe only because it's summer but I find myself wanting to experiment with ND filters to help control DoF when shooting for an effect achieved by a certain, relatively slow, shutter speed. Too much light can be as problematic as too little.
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Seeing that someone (OP??) is looking to shoot weddings using a Rebel 350XT I'd suggest that for many indoor venues this lens is a tad too long. Keep in mind I'm not saying its without value for such settings but its use becomes more limited. You can achieve some of the same effects for closeup using the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (around $400) and a fast wide angle lens like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma 17-55 f/2.8 (both again around $550).
I'm not talking you out of this lens, as you can see from my port I love this lens. I'm just offering some experience in telling you that on a 1.6x crop factor if you want to shoot indoor venues that are lit for mood you might save yourself $800 (my 70-200 ended up at $1800 with tax & shipping from B&H) and pickup these two lenses and still be able to do what you originally intended.
Then again, if you have money to spend and want the top of the line lens that most people will ever put money into, then this lens is hard to beat.
gl and hf shooting |
A tad too long came to mind for me too. Seems you'd have to have at least two lenses to cover everything.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 04:26:06 PM · #30 |
Here's a little piece from the CanonUSA website about IS: Image Stabilizer
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:06:04 PM · #31 |
| I have evaluated the 70-200mm with and without IS. The IS really works in low light conditions, making it worthwhile for usage. If you primarily shoot handheld and frequently in low-light conditions, then IS is a must. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:24:57 PM · #32 |
I thought I would add this snippet of info. Yesterday I went out shooting with another photographer. Granted it was a beautiful day so the lighting was in our favour. We were both using 5D's and while I was using a Sigman 50-500, James was using the 70-200 2.8 with a Canon 2x converter. We were photographing everything from landscape to birdlife, architecture to abstract. We swapped lenses for a while to see the difference. And whilst the 70-200 seemed slightly clearer through the viewfinder I found that the Sigma images seemed better quality. I went completely handheld whereas James switched between tripod and no tripod.
I have been looking at the 70-200 for a while and whilst I have used it before...I was actually a little disappointed in todays results.
Has anybody else compared it with other lenses and what was the result.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2006 06:32:35 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I have the NON-IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens.
You are going to get two distinct responses in this thread. Those who have the lens with the IS function are going to tell you how great it is, and it probably is a good lens. I have the non-IS version and I use it for sports. Some of that sports is in pathetic light also, and I get great results with my lens. |
Ditto. I'm a generalist and don't photograph sports with this lens (non-IS/f2.8), but plenty of action via wildlife and birds in flight among others. While the 1.4x converter works fine with this lens, I'd suggest to take it off, if you want to see what it can do in terms of sharpness and brilliancy. The converter alone will claim two stops.
I've never seen or used a better telephoto zoom.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:44:31 AM EDT.
